That's because those are first party exclusives owned by the actual companies themselves. Sony owns Naughty Dog and them releasing Naughty Dog games on a Playstation platform is like Nintendo releasing a Mario game on a Nintendo platform, they aren't gonna be released on anything else. That's why Last of Us doesn't get ported, while Halo is sorta different since 1 and 2 were ported to the PC, but after that they stopped so as to make it a MS exclusive.clippen05 said:
You're right, those were terrible examples. They were the first things to come to mind as they would be games I'd want to be ported over. I guess a more realistic example would be Red Dead Redemption. But I wouldn't consider it to extraordinary for Microsoft to put it on PC as you said they had previous Halo games on PC and had Fable I and III on PC. Microsoft is the maker of Windows after all, they should treat their children equally.Neronium said:
But, seriously, I understand why they wont do it. Again, I picked the last of us but its a bad example. But Sony does have their own brand of PC development (SOE) and while they mostly do F2P games they did port over Payday: the Heist. Its only one example but it shows that it has been done before.
True, and it may be possible for them to port over if they were to rework Last of Us to PS4, but porting a PS3 game to the PC, and visa versa, is not easy since the "unique" processor the PS3 has kinda makes things more difficult. Like I said, in this day and age exclusivity is going away as ports are now easier for developers of PC games, but hey look at it this way with more people playing games that they'd originally have to buy a completely different console for now we can have more interesting conversations. ^.^ ...I can hope right? (Please note I have a gaming rig, PS3, 360, and Wii that I bought)clippen05 said:
Right? And the irony is, it's a bigger title, with much more variety and a larger scope, but that's not a good thing in this case. ^^kajinking said:
I now have a new answer next time I'm asked "what's the most dickish thing Microsoft's ever done? Charging devs for patches, in an attempt to get them to pass the costs onto end users, so that you can then take a cut of the users' payments? That's like the platonic ideal of screwing over the customer out of sheer greed.J Tyran said:
You know the ***** of it? I really liked the XBox and XBox 360. Not as much as the PS2, mind, but the games I played on those consoles gave me happiness, memories and some evil cackling, especially FlatOut 1.AldUK said:
I think it's notable to look past this individual case for what's to happen overall. Yes, it may add up, as Microsoft just seems to be anti-indie in general. Sure, this particular case probably won't change too many people's opinion, but the fact that this will continue to happen with MANY indie games can.Callate said:
Yes it is true.ProtoChimp said:
